UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4572

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY ZAQUECE WHEELER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00323-WLO)

Submitted:

December 13, 2007

Decided:

December 18, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall S.
Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Tony Zaquece Wheeler was convicted by a jury of five
counts of distribution of crack cocaine.

He was sentenced to the

statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months in prison.

On

appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

his convictions and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
We will not reverse a conviction on the grounds of
insufficiency of the evidence unless the prosecution has clearly
failed

to

present

evidence

supporting

defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984).

conclusion

of

the

See United States v.

Here, Wheeler contends

that the testimony of two eye witnesses that he distributed crack

on

five

separate

convictions

in

occasions
the

was

absence

insufficient

of

to

fingerprints

support
and

his

further

corroboration, especially given the background of a cooperating

witness.

However, the uncorroborated testimony of one witness may

be sufficient to sustain a conviction.

115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997).

Unites States v. Wilson,

In addition, while Wheeler

questions the reliability of the witnesses testimony, we will not

reexamine credibility findings. See United States v. Saunders, 886
F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we find that sufficient

evidence supported Wheelers guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

With regard to Wheelers sentence, the district court
lacked the authority to sentence Wheeler below the statutory

- 2 -

mandatory minimum sentence.

See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d

565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006).

Thus, Wheelers sentence, which was

within

reasonable

the

reasonable.

presumptively

guideline

range,

was

See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006) (standard of review).

Accordingly,
sentence.

we

affirm

Wheelers

convictions

and

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -